Senate Education Committee hears testimony on bill to ban student device use during instructional time

Chairwoman Erickson opened the Senate Education Committee hearing on Senate Bill 302, which would require school districts and accredited nonpublic schools to adopt policies prohibiting students from using personal electronic communication devices during instructional time and to limit staff use of social media to board‑approved platforms.

Tamara Lawrence, the committee adviser, walked members through the bill section by section, noting definitions for "personal electronic communication device" and "instructional time," exceptions for IEPs, Section 504 plans and physician‑documented medical necessity, authorization for storage or leaving devices off campus, and a requirement that districts certify compliance to the State Board of Education. The bill also exempts virtual schools and says it would take effect on July 1 upon publication in the statute book.

Supporters framed the bill around student safety and learning. Emily Brownlee, a former high‑school teacher, testified: "Our children live in an online world where evil is profitable," and urged passage to protect students from predation, addiction and other harms. Michael Chartier, legislative director with Accelerated in Action for the Midwest, cited studies he said show widespread in‑school phone use and better outcomes where stricter policies exist; he reported that a University of Michigan C.S. Mott study found "97 of students use their cell phones during the school day" and pointed to research associating stricter phone policies with improved test scores and lower unexcused absences. Kevin Chronister, a newly retired ICAC task‑force detective, told the committee that predators exploit in‑school phone access to groom additional victims and said restricting access "will allow us to eliminate a high risk opportunity that gives predators access to children." Several mental‑health and advocacy witnesses, including Anthony Duramuth, April Holman of the Alliance for a Healthy Kansas, and Katie Longhauser of Screen Guardians, argued that constant device access harms attention, development and mental well‑being.

Proponents also described implementation recommendations. Nog Vong, a Wichita Public Schools board member and PhD candidate studying device policies, said just 11 percent of students attended districts with bell‑to‑bell phone policies as of fall 2025 and described plans to analyze outcomes across districts. Kim Whitman, co‑lead of Smartphone Free Childhood U.S., emphasized the need for inaccessible storage and said she preferred clarifying the social‑media definition or adopting a fuller prohibition of student‑facing social‑media communications.

Neutral witnesses and school officials expressed concern about drafting and implementation language. Kathy Hopkins, chair legislative liaison for the State Board of Education, appeared neutral and urged community‑tailored approaches; Frank Harwood, KSDE deputy commissioner, recommended using the phrase "school day" rather than "instructional time" if the intention is bell‑to‑bell coverage and clarified that controlled learning management systems such as Google Classroom would not likely be treated as social media. Tim Graham of the Kansas National Education Association (KNEA) said members were divided and urged the committee to address confidentiality, enforcement liability, family‑caretaker realities and the effect of unfunded mandates.

Opponents warned of local‑control and constitutional concerns. Leah Fleider of the Kansas Association of School Boards said roughly 240 districts already have cell‑phone policies and cautioned that a state law could conflict with locally adopted arrangements and create liability questions (for example, if a phone stored in a car on school grounds were stolen). Anne Ma, a former legislator and state board member, argued the bill risks legislative overreach and cited Kansas constitutional provisions regarding locally elected boards. Student speaker Kaylee Howell of Spring Hill High School testified that the bill is overly broad, would impose enforcement burdens on teachers and could reach extracurricular activities.

The committee did not take a vote during the hearing. Chairwoman Erickson closed the session and reminded members the committee needed to be on the Senate floor at 2:30 p.m.; the panel adjourned without action and the bill remains under committee consideration.

What’s next: Committee members asked for clarifying language on the social‑media definition and for copies of ongoing research; several witnesses offered to provide follow‑up materials. No formal amendments or motions were made on the record at this hearing.